_,,. B.K.N. PILLAI v. P. PILLAI DECEMBER 13 & Anr.

Respondent/plaintiff filed suit against appellant/defendant seeking his eviction on the ground that he was a licensee. Appellant/defendant pleaded in D his written statement that he was not a licensee but a lessee, but after a prolonged delay he filed an application for amendment of the written statement, seeking to incorporate the plea that in case he is not held lessee, he was entitled to the benefit of Section 60(b) of Indian Easement Act, 1882 according to which his licence cannot be revoked by the grantor. E The trial court, and in appeal, the high Court, rejected the plea on the ground that the proposed amendment amounted to withdrawal of the statement made in the written statement. Allowing the appeals, this Court F HELD:

The finding of the High Court that the proposed amendment virtually amounted to withdrawal of any admission made by the appellant and that such withdrawal was likely to cause irretrievable prejudice to the resp_ondent, cannot be agreed to. The plea sought to be raised is neither inconsistent nor repugnant to the pleas already raised in defence. The alternative plea sought to be incorporated in the written statement is in fact G the extension of the pleas of the respondent/plaintiff and rebuttal to the issue framed regarding liability of the appellant of being dispossessed on proof of the fact that he was a licensee liable to be evicted in accordance with the }\TOVisions of law. The mere fact that the appellant had filed the application 271 H ' 272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A after a prolonged delay could not be made a ground for rejecting his prayer particularly when the respondent/plaintiff could be compensated by costs. (276-E; 276-C-EJ

2.1. The purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as B may be just The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interest of justice. It is true that the amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances. But it is equally true that the courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt hypertechnical approach. Liberal approach should C be the general rule particularly in cases where the other side can be compensa$ed with the costs. Technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the courts in the administration of justice between the parties. Amendments are allowed in the pleading to avoid uncalled for multiplicity of litigation. (273-G-H; 274-A) D